Don't quote me on this, but I believe that the code you find around the internet relating to OpenTK doesn't necessarily have to be MIT/X11, and it doesn't default to it. If they include the MIT/X11 license with their code then it is. The reasoning behind this is that MIT/X11 doesn't include a copy-left clause. Things like the GPL force you to release your project open source and license your project GPL (copy left). If you want to be completely legal about things, go do your own research, but generally bugfixes get patched into the main trunk, where the notice is, so it's no big deal.

If you're talking about an engine based off OpenTK or something, they'll almost certainly have their own license terms.

I believe Fiddler will be able to make a more precise statement, but the slowdown of releases is due to

The 1.0 API lockdown.

Real Life.

A release today would be more like 1.0.1, because it's just minor bugfixes.

Most users preferring SVN over installers anyway.

OpenTK is nowhere near dead, but fact is we built it to build other software ontop of it and for that it works fine. Also OpenTK's goals have been achieved: platform neutral low level bindings for OpenGL (& ES), AL and CL with extensions, inline docs and enum sugar ontop. We realized the initial plans for OpenTK 2.0 (namely GLOO, ALOO and the more prominent CLOO) are worth their own svn and projects pages, which is already happening to CLOO and also GLOO has it's own git repo. Isolation is a good thing for things that don't need to be mixed.

I apologize for being slow about OpenGL 4.2, but to my defense I neither have the hardware to verify that it works nor are there (to my knowledge) any tools available yet which allow content creation for use with the tesselation extension. Looking at user feedback it's not a huge priority to others either (likely for the same reasons as mine).

I agree, I am very happy with the way 1.0 is, I think a 1.0.1 release with all the bug-fixes would be fantastic though. I am very glad you guys added a link to the nightly build on the front page though.

I don't want to rain on your parade but from my point of view there is not much difference between OpenTK and a dead project. There are things that simply do not work anymore.

1. The main page here says "easy integration into GTK#" but GLWidget is just completely broken and from looking at the code never worked right in the first place.
2. MAC OS code has issues. Not even the examples work on OSX. They just hang.

It's normal that things break. It just happens. For an active project this is not so much of an issue. This is how it should be
submit a bug report

have a quick conversation with the developers

if they don't have time they just tell you so and kindly ask if you could investigate

the bug gets tracked down and a patch is submitted

the patch is integrated and a after some time a bugfixing release is done

For OpenTK I never got past the 2nd point. Conversation simply runs dry. It's completely understandable that OpenTK developers don't have that much time anymore. But this should be the time to make use of the community. When people put time into tracking down bugs and even offer to fix them there should at least be someone to talk to who replies within a month. Otherwise the project is simply not actively maintained anymore. Don't get me wrong. I like OpenTK, it helped me a lot and I'm really thankful for getting it for free. But I think there is a problem.

Yes, muhku is right. something weird is happening with the patch submission. several months ago i posted two patches (matrix from quaternion conversion and matrix shear) and they have not been integrated yet in the svn repository.